Forum:Valid and invalid sources for real-world material
Memory Alpha:Resource policy says that “fan reference works” and “Websites” are invalid resources for MA articles. Yet in practice it’s quite common for editors to cite information from “news” websites for real-world articles. These include both professional entertainment industry news sites, such as HollywoodReporter.com and Deadline.com, as well as fan-oriented sites such as TrekMovie.com and TrekCore.com. Indeed, in the latter case, we have templates for links to those sites, which appears to give linking to them the stamp of approval. Finally, I’ve seen cases in which editors have used YouTube videos from channels such as Midnight’s Edge as citations. It seems to me that the latter is clearly not something we should be using as a source for any articles, as they mix sourced material with rumor, supposed “insider information” and speculation (not to mention that their track record for accuracy is fairly poor). But the policy as written would seem to exclude more reliable news sources as well. Is that what we want the policy to be? I’d suggest that the policy should be clearer about use of news sources for real-world articles and sections. I think that it should say that the best sources are official statements from sources directly associated with Star Trek (e.g. StarTrek.com, CBS press releases, etc.), then professional news organizations that cover film and television (but not gossip sites!), then fan sites with a reputation for accuracy (and we should discuss which ones fall into that category). I think speculative or opinion-based fan pages and videos should be explicitly excluded. Do others agree with this? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 22:09, August 1, 2019 (UTC) :We use official statements, or journalistic coverage of those statements, while everything else should be removed to a talk page. Journalism is not restricted to "professionals" or a format, and "official" statements could be wrong depending on how "official" the source is. I'm not interested in creating a tiered website/source list, as StarTrek.com would be far below Trekmove.com in that hypothetical, but if the wording needs to be tweaked to clarify the intent there then I'm open to ideas about that. - 05:14, August 2, 2019 (UTC) I take your point that medium/format alone shouldn't necessarily exclude a potential source. But that's what MA:RESOURCE does as currently written, with the line about "Websites" in the "Invalid resources" section. So that, I think, needs to be changed. The policy page doesn't really have any guidance about journalistic sources, either print or online. But for real-world pages like Paramount Pictures or Les Moonves, I think we need to allow journalistic sources beyond the types listed in the "Production and reference materials" section. (Information on a subject like the CBS/Viacom split is going to be found in different types of sources than information on the design of the Ferengi Marauder.) I think there ought to be another sub-section under "Supplementary resources" covering journalism or news sources, whether general-interest (e.g. LA Times) or fan-oriented (e.g. TrekMovie). If such a section is added, we would need to be able to distinguish between reliable journalism and rumor-mongering. What criteria do you suggest we use for that? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 17:35, August 2, 2019 (UTC) :The wording was to deal more with the problems of the time rather then the intent, which is that rumor and speculation don't become noteworthy just because it was written down or recorded. While that line should change, I'm still not interested in creating a list of what is "news" vs "rumor" when a single line about "media" coverage would suffice. - 17:06, August 4, 2019 (UTC) I’m still not asking for a list. I was asking for a tool, rule or rubric editors could refer to if there was a dispute over whether a given source was journalism or rumor-mongering. I suppose we can, if we want, use Potter Stewart’s rule (“I know it when I see it”), but I foresee that causing future conflicts. While the changes you’ve made are good, I still think there should be some explicit mention that sources which present rumor as fact, or rely on unnamed “production insiders”, should not be used. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?—Josiah Rowe (talk) 15:08, August 4, 2019 Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 04:40, August 11, 2019 (UTC) ::The original wording was confusing, but the changes seem good enough to me. If you don't have the critical thinking skills to separate good sources from sketchy rumor, then more text isn't gonna help you, it's just gonna turn you into an embittered rules lawyer. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:18, August 14, 2019 (UTC) Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 17:59, August 18, 2019 (UTC)